People who get offended easily are losers!

[Guest Editor]

YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T READ DO YOU?

And you obviously missed Reply #20.

Congratulations, that's TWICE you missed the point.

P.S. If you don't like being accused of racism, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to accuse others. THAT'S THE POINT.

[Guest coach]

So how many non blacks on here would be comfortable being the only light skinned person in a black neighborhood with 200 black people walking the streets there?

Me. Done it plenty of times. Maybe it's the long hair.

[Guest RzO]

ain't that the truth !

[Guest XHF037]

This is some funny shit...

I call my black friends n-i-g-g-a-s and my white friends krackas so that way nobody feels any type of racisim towards them.

Don't like it? Fuck it, my friends don't mind.

[Guest coach]

Using humorous insults amongst friends is one thing. Generalizing and denigrating an entire category of people is entirely another.

So, Shaun, the question is, what was the answer to your question? Is there any evidence to show that members of minority religions, like Voodoo, are more likely to be a credit risk? Or is this just an aspect of your own prejudices? I wonder if there is any credit difference in countries where Voodoo is the majority religion? In those countries, do Voodoo practitioners have *better* credit, on average, since they are in the majority? I'm really curious as to what the presenters said in answer to your question.

[Guest slamminshaun]

Well, it started out as comparing credit risk among those that are loosely the same religion. Methodists, Mormons and Catholics have a national or regional "board of directors" that overseas the finances and budgeting of the church's activities. They have someone who serves as a controller and performs all the same tasks as a CFO.

Those religions that do not have such a hierarchy are, in fact, considered higher risk since they are not nearly as organized. That doesn't mean they are an intolerable risk, it just means they carry a higher risk than those that have a formal organizational chart.

Like it or not, Christian-based religions are the majority in this country, therefore, they have an easier time recruiting "giving units". Giving units are those who fund the church's operations. This is also where churches get the money to repay their debts, something the bank is most interested in. If you have a hard time recruiting reliable giving units into your congregation, you are a higher risk.

That's what led me to ask about religions that weren't mainstream in this country. I was trying to understand how to measure risk between religions. I don't know how it works in other countries, and I admit that I know very little of voodoo, but I will assume that if you opened a Voodoo church in my town you would have a harder time recruiting giving units than a Catholic church would. Follow me?

[Guest coach]

Shaun, everything you just said is circumstantial and unsupported anecdotal evidence. You said you asked this:

So I asked, "Do we consider loans to non-mainstream religions more risky than those considered mainstream?"

My question is, what did the presenter say?

Did they present any actual research that showed non-mainstream religions are a greater risk? I mean, has this been tracked over the history of lending? Are non-mainstream religions more likely to default? What's the numbers there? I mean, you started the story and never gave us the punchline, don't leave us hanging!

[Guest slamminshaun]

Shaun, everything you just said is circumstantial and unsupported anecdotal evidence. You said you asked this:

So I asked, "Do we consider loans to non-mainstream religions more risky than those considered mainstream?"

My question is, what did the presenter say?

Did they present any actual research that showed non-mainstream religions are a greater risk? I mean, has this been tracked over the history of lending? Are non-mainstream religions more likely to default? What's the numbers there? I mean, you started the story and never gave us the punchline, don't leave us hanging!

The carribean chick interrupted and went of on a tangent and the whole conversation went off-topic. I ended up getting my answer, but only privately. Even the presenter was a chicken-shit and didn't want to publicly say that "yes, banks consider unconventional religions to be riskier than those that are mainstream as it relates to lending."

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

So before you make me out to be some kind of bigot

...[chuckle]...

Relax dude, I feel the same way you do about the Imus thing. Exactly the same way.

Evidently, you've missed to whole point of this entire exercise. Go back to my first post in this thread...do you see down at the bottom where it says "(sound familiar?)"

That post was merely an attempt to point out to you how chickenshit YOUR "anti-Japanese campaign" accusation of ME was in this thread. As a matter of fact, it's an exact copy of your accusation, with the words "Black People" substituted for "Japanese."

I don't see how my posts in this thread that I have made about black people and the way that the way a lot of them use language affects their paradigm is remotely similar to the posts that were made (by you) in the thread about the Japanese slaughtering dolphins.

In dolphin thread people were talking about the nature in the way that the Japanese slaughtered those dolphins. And if I remember correctly it was you who posted a reply on that same thread about how the Japanese tourtured U.S bomber pilots in WWII.

Now if I'm not mistaken again, my remarks on this thread about black people have been contained to the way that they use language and how that language affects their culture and the cultures that intersect the black culture.

I did not go off on any tangent or post a reply outside of the context of this discussion.

In the 'Slaughtering Dolphin Thread' adding a remark outside of the context of the thread topic, such as what happened, is totally a racist remark..

Sorry man. You ain't fooling anyone here trying to make out like you are MLK's prodigy or something..

[Guest yume]

So how many non blacks on here would be comfortable being the only light skinned person in a black neighborhood with 200 black people walking the streets there?

Me. Actually, a few months ago I partied with 300 or so people from The National Brotherhood of Skiers (an African American organization) at Nocturnal. That upstairs room was packed, and other than the bartenders I was the ONLY white person. I had so much fun. The age range of the group was 20s to 50s, I was shakin' my ass with 50 year old black women while their husbands watched.

[Guest Editor]

...adding a remark outside of the context of the thread

Don't try to worm out of it. The context is clear: YOU asked "What's more cruel than that?" and I gave you an answer.

At any rate, I made a New Year's resolution to stop arguing with liberals (I just made a special exception in your case since you pissed me off in the other thread ;D), so I'll leave you with a few parting thoughts:

My best friend for 20 years is black

You really need to understand that that's a huge slap in the face to black people that goes all the way back to the 1950's when it used to be "Some of my best friends are negros." Black people don't buy that routine for a second because they know it's usually coming from some guilt-ridden liberal who's simply trying ease his own conscience at their expense.

I call him 'my n-i-g-g-i-a'. I tell him his hair looks nappy and I've told him in the past that his girlfriends are all ho bags...

Do you think that I've never been a victim of racism in my lifetime growing up as the only Asian kid in a predominatly white neighborhood?

Being an "Asian kid" doesn't give you some special right to refer to other minorities using racial slurs anymore than if THEY referred to YOU with one of the many derogatory phrases people use against Asians. Wrong is wrong. And if it's wrong for white people, it needs to be wrong for everyone, INCLUDING you.

So, next time you attempt to accuse other people of racism, make sure your own shit is tight first.

If you have any further questions, I refer you to Reply #20.

Have a good life.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

...adding a remark outside of the context of the thread

My best friend for 20 years is black

You really need to understand that that's a huge slap in the face to black people that goes all the way back to the 1950's when it used to be "Some of my best friends are negros." Black people don't buy that routine for a second because they know it's usually coming from some guilt-ridden liberal who's simply trying ease his own conscience at their expense.

I don't understand what you're saying here. My best friend of 20 years is black. He would say to his friends that don't know me that 'one of my best friends is Asian'.

What routine are you talking about?

Or are you tripping out about the fact that I infact do have friends who are black?

And about me being liberal. How liberal do you think I'am?

Because I'm anti Republican? Because I'm a vegetarian? Because I'm pro-environment?

I'm also pro-life, I'm against stem cell research and I have a few more core conservative values that lean to the left.

You're probably more of a Liberal than I'am I bet...LOL..

Dude just face it. In the case of racist remarks regarding the black community, black people need to stop living a 'DOUBLE STANDARD' and stop prepetuating some negative aspects in their culture.

What's so bad about that?

[Guest Mattivi]

this thread has gotten pretty lame. :